I mentioned in a previous part of this series, that one of the well known, consistent features of any human fossil evidence that has been claimed to be evidence of the evolution of man, is that they have either been forgeries or animal bones (usually apes or pigs) conjectured to be human (The Piltdown Man and The Nebraska Man being two examples).

There is another issue related to human archeological findings and that is the well-known concealment of findings that oppose the theory of evolution.

In each of these cases, the fossils have been found to date back to a period evolutionist claim mankind was still ‘evolving’ and thus these discoveries have created major problems for evolutionists.

Any scientist that ‘shames the devil’ and decides to argue in favour of what these discoveries indicate, will very quickly find himself (or herself) witch-hunted and find their careers ending and reputations demolished.

Evolutionists claim, mankind as we know them (Homo sapiens) have existed for no more than approximately 200,000 years (some argue 100,000). Prior to this period we were ‘evolving’. This evolution took place, they claim, over a period of approximately 2 million years! It occurred initially in Africa and developing man began to spread in neighbouring regions.

A word on Carbon Dating

An issue to be noted concerning scientific dating is the presence of wild inaccuracies found in samples dated using carbon dating:

The following are a few examples of wild dating inaccuracies:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61)

Living mollusc shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637)

Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (Reginald Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280)

Thus if inaccuracies are present to the extreme extent, that a living snails shell has been dated at 27,000 years, then imagine the possible inaccuracies present in the estimation of the time man has been present on earth!.

Examples of such findings

In June of 2016 The new York times announced that: ‘Scientists have found the fossilized remains of a petite hominin (a small predecessor to modern man) due to the height of the fossil (just 3 ½ foot tall) that lived 700,000 years ago.’ (even though they were discovered over ten years earlier)

Doubts that the remains constitute a new species were soon voiced by the Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob, who suggested that the skull of the fossil (referred to as LB1) was a microcephalic modern human (Microcephaly is a medical condition in which the brain does not develop properly resulting in a smaller than normal head. Microcephaly may be present at birth or it may develop in the first few years of life ).

Thus Teuku Jacob a reputable anthropologist from the region of the discovery, rejected the claim that it was a Hominin and argued that it was a fully formed Human. He did so after taking the sample from Soejono’s institution, Jakarta’s National Research Centre of Archaeology, for his own research. Of course, doctor Jacob was thereafter chastised and referred to as ‘irresponsible’. Subsequently, access to the cave where the discovery was found was made forbidden and excavations were no longer possible until fairly recently.

The discovery was barely mentioned in the media, possible due to the fact that the period the fossil is dated to, is a time wherein humans were supposed to still be evolving. It would therefore constitute a clear refutation of the theory that man evolved from ape.

Yet it is hardly mentioned!

It is not the only case. There has been a number of discoveries similar to it that are covered up due to the fact that the fossils are dated to a period wherin humans are not yet (according to evolutionists) supposed to be humans.

A particularly striking example In this category Is a shell displaying a crude yet recognizably human face carved on its outer surface. Reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881, this shell, from the Pliocene ( a stage in the Neogene Period in geologic time) Red Crag formation in England, is over 2 million years old. According to standard views, humans capable of this level of artistry did not arrive in Europe until about 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. Furthermore, they supposedly did not arise in their African homeland until about 100,000 years ago.

In the late nineteenth century. Benjamin Harrison, an amateur archeologist, found eoliths (The most rudimentary stone tools, the eoliths are also known as “Dawn stones”) on the Kent Plateau In southeastern England. Geological evidence suggests that the eoliths were manufactured in the Middle or Late Pliocene, about 2 – 4 million ago. Among the supporters of Harrison’s eoliths were Alfred Russell Wallace. Co-founder with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection; Sir John Prestwich, one of England’s most eminent geologists: and Ray E. Lankester, a director of the British Museum (Natural History).

In the 1950s, Louis Leakey found stone tools over 200,000 years old at Calico in southern California. According to standard views, humans did not enter the subarctic regions of the New World until about 12,000 years ago. Mainstream scientists responded to the Calico discoveries with predictable claims that the objects found there were natural products or that they were not really 200,000 years old. But there is sufficient reason to conclude that the Calico finds are genuinely old human artifacts. Although most of the Calico implements are crude, some, including a beaked graver, are more advanced.

Fiorentino Ameghino, a respected Argentine paleontologist, found stone tools, signs of fire, broken mammal bones, and a human vertebra in a Pliocene formation at Monte Hermoso, Argentina. Ameghino made numerous similar discoveries in Argentina, attracting the attention of scientists around the world. Despite Ameghino’s unique theories about a South American origin for the hominids, his actual discoveries are still worth considering. In 1912, Ales Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institution, published a lengthy, but not very reasonable, attack on Ameghino’s work. Hrdlicka asserted that all of Ameghino’ s finds were from recent Indian settlements. In response, Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino Ameghino, carried out new Investigations at Miramar, on the Argentine coast south of Buenos Aires. There he found a series of stone implements, including bolas, and signs of fire. A commission of geologists confirmed the implements’ position in the Chapadmalalan formation, which modern geologists say is 3-5 million years old. Carlos Ameghino also found at Miramar a stone arrowhead firmly embedded In the femur of a Pliocene species of Toxodon, an extinct South American mammal.

In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen-Mclntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the site’s implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of human origins. Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in Africa.

In 1880. J D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found In California gold mines. The Implements including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, In formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over 55 million years old. W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal nineteenth-century critics of the California finds, wrote; “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North Ametica], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted. In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded.

In relation to old skeletal remains of the anatomically modern human type, perhaps the most interesting case is that of Castenedolo, Italy, where in the 1880s, G. Ragazzoni, a geologist, found fossil bones of several Homo sapiens sapiens individuals in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million years old. Critics typically respond that the bones must have been placed into these Pliocene layers fairly recently by human burial. But Ragazzoni was alert to this possibility and carefully inspected the overlying layers. He found them undisturbed, with absolutely no sign of burial.

With the discovery of Java man, now classified as Homo erectus, the long-awaited missing link turned up in the Middle Pleistocene. As the Java man find won acceptance among evolutionists, the body of evidence for a human presence in more ancient times gradually slid into disrepute. This evidence was not conclusively invalidated. Instead, at a certain point, scientists stopped talking and writing about it. It was incompatible with the idea that ape-like Java man was a genuine human ancestor. As an example of how the Java man discovery was used to suppress evidence for a human presence in the Pliocene and earlier, the following statement made by W. H. Holmes about the California finds reported by J D. Whitney is instructive. After asserting that Whitney’s evidence “stands absolutely alone, ” Holmes complained that it implies a human race older by at least one-half than Pithecanthropus erectus, which may be regarded as an incipient form of human creature only. ” Therefore, despite the good quality of Whitney’ s evidence, it had to be dismissed. Interestingly enough, modern researchers have reinterpreted the original Java Homo erectus fossils. The famous bones reported by Dubois were a skullcap and femur (thigh bone). Although the two bones were found over 45 feet apart, In a deposit filled with bones of many other species. Dubois said they belonged to the same individual. But in 1973, M. H. Day and T. r. Molleson determined that the femur found by Dubois is different from other Homo erectus femurs and is in fact indistinguishable from anatomically modern human femurs (i.e. it was that of a modern human thigh). This caused Day and Molleson to propose that the femur was not connected with the Java man skull. As far as we can see, this means that we now have an anatomically modern human femur and a Homo erectus skull in a Middle Pleistocene stratum that is considered to be 800,000 years old. This provides further evidence that anatomically modern humans coexisted with more ape-like creatures in unexpectedly remote times.

(See ‘Forbidden Archeology – The Hidden History of the Human Race of Michael A. Cremo: P22-29)

The last example indicates, that normal modern man existed alongside the apes whose bones have been used to claim we evolved. But of course, these examples must be dismissed, otherwise, the theory will be harmed.

Concerning this Michael A. Cremo wrote in his book Forbidden Archeology P25:

“This supports the primary point we are trying to make in Forbidden Archeology, namely, that there exists in the scientific community a knowledge filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. This process of knowledge filtration has been going on for well over a century and continues right up to the present day.”

These are a few examples of well-known cover-ups in the archeological community.

The point to be made here is, while we do not agree with the given dates, we see there is an on-going pattern of rejection of anything that would disturb the ‘equilibrium’ of the theory, even when it come from their own scientific community!

We see then an on-going pattern of fraud and knowledge filtration, in an attempt to have the world accept Darwinism as the only viable, acceptable explanation for our existence.

Another most important piece of evidence for Darwinian evolution is that of the fossil records. Since the theory revolves around decent with modification, and the earliest life forms changing very gradually in incremental stages, it should follow, that the best way to trace those changes is by studying the fossil records that exist for life on earth. Of course, if the theory is correct, the fossil records should be abundant with evidence of the varying life forms that have mutated and gradually became various species of animal. We should also witness some of the mutated animals that have died out, and their fitter, stronger successors.

It is a fact that Darwin had a hard time trying to get acceptance for his theory, but most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents were not clergymen, but fossil experts.

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago and a leading evolutionist.

According to Coyne, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation,” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”

If Darwinian theory were true, “we should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.” Furthermore, “we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians.”

Coyne turns first to the fossil record. “We should be able,” he writes, “to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing ‘descent with modification’ (adaptation).” In particular, “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” (Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25)

This issue is one that evolutionist past and present acknowledge. They accept that the fossil records should be the greatest testimony to Darwin’s theory. But it isn’t.

As Coyne writes “We should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record…” but we don’t! this of course is a catastrophic problem for the theory.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory.

Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian.

The ‘Cambrian Explosion’

The oldest of all fossil records at the time of Darwin were the Cambrian fossil records.

This discovery, found in Cumbria, south Wales is possibly the greatest and most popular breakthrough fossil discovery.

This phenomenon is so dramatic that is it known as the Cambrian Explosion (referred to as such, because most of the major animal phyla or groups, appear within it, all of a sudden) hence biologists refer to it as biology’s ‘big bang’ (not a reference to an actual explosion).

But the fossil record doesn’t have within it, a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera then families then orders then classes then phyla.

In the Cambrian it was discovered that there were over 50 body plans — simple to complex — appearing suddenly in the fossil record without any trace of gradual modification.

Thus most of the major animal phyla and the major classes within it appear together …fully formed! Darwin could not explain it except with conjecture.

He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained”

Charles Darwin plainly stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been produced by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Darwinian evolution requires geological time periods, making the fossil record a vital ally in the corner of scientific materialism. Unfortunately for Darwin and his advocates, the fossil record has some major problems. First, the fossil record offers little to no evidence of transitional forms — those intermediary life forms bridging the gaps between known species.

One might therefore suppose, that geologists would be continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms. This, however, was clearly not the case. What geologists did discover was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. Darwin conceded that the state of the fossil evidence was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,”

According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” In addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than one million years before disappearing from the record.

The Maths of the theory

There are some issues related to the theory that do not add up. Bare in mind, the theory revolves around gradual change over time. To demonstrate the problem, paleontologist Stephen Stanley uses the example of the bat and the whale, which are supposed to have evolved from a common mammalian ancestor in little more than ten million years, to illustrate the unsolvable problem that fossil stasis poses for Darwinian gradualism: Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale by a process of gradual transformation of established species. If an average chronospecies (fossil lifespan of a species lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodent like form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!

The other issue at hand is proving decent through modification. If we were to suppose that we had two fossils of animals that resemble one another that according to our dating seemed to precede each other. How exactly do we establish that one has ‘evolved’ from the other except through conjecture as overwhelming as it may well be.

The late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged this as “the trade secret of paleontology.” He went on to admit, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” This is a reference to the well-known ‘tree of evolution’ that we find in our biology textbooks. The only thing that we have concrete evidence for it that which exists at the tips of the branches of the tree, everything that exists in those drawing lower down in the tree have been added based upon ‘belief’ and conjecture and not evidence.

Other Darwinists have suggested that the absence of fossils is a problem with the fossil record itself rather than with evolutionary theory. That is to say even though we don’t have evidence for the theory in fossil records, it is because the fossil records are deficient and we will eventually discover fossil that will prove it. Again we see proof of the fact that the theory was thought up first and then evidence was sought for it! Even though evidence does not exist, evolutionists still postulate that the theory is ‘established’ even in the absence of categorical proof. And it is with this ‘blind faith’ we see believers in the theory debate.

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their time on earth. They appear in the fossil record, looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind (a process considered by later-day darwinists (or neo-darwinists) to have occurred through genetic mutations), the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. Darwinists explain away the sudden appearance of new species by saying that perhaps the transitional intermediates were for some reason not fossilized, and that perhaps the soft frames of the creatures caused them to dissappear and not be fossilised! But stasis- the consistent absence of fundamental directional change- is positively documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.

Next, there is the problem of interpretation. As Ian Tattersall, Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, confesses, “The patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mind-sets as from the evidence itself.” Richard Leakey admitted as much when he disclosed the tendency of his father (palaeontologist Louis Leakey) to arrange fossils and alter their criteria to fit into a line of human descent. That is to say, the fossils that do exist are ‘re-arranged’ to fit with evolutionist theory and not left in the manner in which they were discovered.

But most damaging to the integrity of the fossil record is the cloud of fraud that hangs over it. As reported in the February 2003 issue of Discover, “Such so-called missing links as Java man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and Peking man were eventually shown to be outright fabrications. …Today there are scores of fake fossils out there and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field … there is a fake fossil factory in north-eastern China…. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business.”

For 150 years the fossil record has ‘refused’ to affirm gradualism and, with it, Darwin’s theory of evolution

Stephen J. Gould said:

“The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions…has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution”

(Evolution Now P.140)

Darwinists claim they have found the missing link between land mammals and whales but they admit none could have been an ancestor of the other, it is impossible in principle to show that any two fossils are genealogically related.

In 1998 and 1999 the Us national academy of sciences published two booklets defending darwins theory of evolution. According to the 1998 booklet fossils provide the first of several ‘compelling‘ lines of evidence that ‘demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt‘ that all living things are modified decendants of a common ancestor’

The 1999 booklet claims that the theory has been ‘thoroughly tested and confirmed’ by several categories of evidence. First of all the fossil record which provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time, and decent with modification. Most biology texts books take the same deceptive line.

Darwinism is the theory of gradualism from common descent: the slow process whereby complex life forms emerge from simpler ones that have accumulated modifications through the mechanisms of variation and natural selection. This should be recorded in fossil history.

Fossils certainly prove that the earth was once populated by creatures that are no longer with us. The fossil record also provides evidence that the history of life has passed through several stages, only the most recent of which includes us.

Darwins ‘Tree of Life’

Imagine having a chronoscope that would enable you to peer back in time to the origin of the first animal. Perhaps a primitive sponge. The sponge makes more sponges like itself and if darwins theory is true, after thousands of generations this sponge population splits into two different kinds of sponges which are called separate species. After millions more generations and the origin of a few more species some species become so different from each other that we split them into two genera (plural of genus) after countless more generations the differences are so great within those genera that we divide them into two families. As differences continue to accumulate, we eventually group the splitting of those families into two of more ‘orders’ and various orders into two or more ‘classes’ despite all the generations and the differences however we might still have only sponges. Then another major type of animal emerges perhaps jellyfish. This animal would be so radically different from the others that we wouldn’t just class it as another sponge. Rather it is an entirely new category, a phylum (plural of phyla).

This pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor with major differences occurring only after a long accumulation of minor differences, is how Darwin envisioned evolution.

These transitional links present here would create a branching pattern Darwin called the great tree of life he demonstrated this with a sketch in the origin of species. It the bottom of the tree graph were the primitive sponge from which all other animals decended, then most of the branches above it would be sponges, the major differences, the phyla would appear only at the top after a long history of branching due to the accumulation of minor differences.

Biologists recognise several dozen animal phyla based upon major differences in body plans. There are over a dozen phyla of worms alone. There are even more striking differences between worms and mollusc’s, (clams and octopuses), Echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins), arthropods (lobsters and insects) and vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

If Darwin’s theory were true then these major differences should only make their appearance at the top of his great tree of life…but the fossil records shows exactly the opposite, they appear in the lower levels of the Cambrian discovery !

Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders), it was noted, conformed to a basic structural plan, with very few intermediate types. Where were the links between these discontinuous groups? The absence of transitional intermediates was troubling even to Darwin’s loyal supporter T. H. Huxley, who warned Darwin repeatedly in private that a theory consistent with the evidence would have to allow for some big jumps (since there is no evidence for the incremental gradual changes).

Darwin posed the question himself, asking why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?

Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

He answered with a theory of extinction which was the logical counterpart of “the survival of the fittest.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

( “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712)

Therefore the issue remains the same, the claim of ‘evidence’ is still an unestablished myth. Evolution is still a ‘belief’. The issue is intensified though, by ‘hidden’ fossil discoveries, that have been intentionally concealed and we will look into that in the following part inshaa’allah.

We begin this section by mentioning that the issue of Natural Selection is perhaps the most fundamental, key issue Darwin’s theory of Evolution is based upon. Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, then sought evidence to substantiate the theory, this is important to note. It explains why Darwin and scientist believers in his theory, have struggled desperately to establish the evidence to confirm it.

In his book The origin of species Darwin presented three main arguments:

That species are not immutable (lit: Fixed, unchangeable), that is to say, new species of living beings have appeared during earths long history, through a process he named decent through modification (Random, undirected, mutations in the organisms DNA, leading to the development of an advanced version of the same creature, and this process continued until we have a completely new ‘species’ of animal that is unable to breed with its pre-species)

That this process accounts for all diversity of life

That this process was guided by Natural selection (survival of the fittest, the weaker inferior creature was surpassed by the new ‘mutant’ creature and thus it survived and the previous lifeform didn’t)

This third issue of natural selection is the topic at hand here,

As mentioned previously, Darwins theory of natural selection is based upon decent through modification. Darwin claimed that all species of animal after the first lifeform, are descended with modification from some other species. Therefore, everything in Darwin’s theory revolves around his argument that, the origin of all and any new species of animal, stem from existing species, what evolutionary biologist call speciation (spee-see-ay-shun). Proving changes within existing species are beside the point. Darwin called his book ‘on the origin of species’ since he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species to another was the most fundamental problem of his evolution theory. Thus the issue at hand is not change ‘within’ a species, but one species becoming another.

So speciation is Darwinism’s most fundamental problem, the starting point for everything else in evolutionary theory. It is not an issue for believers in intelligent design though, those who believe in an ever-living most-knowledgeable, Most-wise creator, do not have any issues here.

Speciation is not an issue for them, since every organism that exists, points clearly and categorically towards design. The creator of those organisms has also informed, in his revelation, of how he created. Revelation tallies with everything observed, just as we concluded in our previous house parable, the observed house could only be the work of an architect.

‘Observed’ speciation

As a purely scientific matter however, it is reasonable to ask, has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwinism, ever been observed.

This on-going process, that has accounted for the development of all species, of fish, reptile, amphibian and mammal should, in order to be a consistent theory, still be observed!

The argument is: that through speciation, all kinds of animal have developed. Due to decent with modification, gradual changes through mutations, all species have developed. Due to fitness, some have survived and others have just not developed or have died out.

Mutation

Mutations are randomly occurring genetic changes, which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects within the organism large enough to be visible. The theory of evolution depends heavily upon mutations. Of course, mutations are genetic ‘errors’ that may occur within the DNA of a cell on rare occasions. While Darwin evolutionists agree that mutations are errors, they argue that those errors may occasionally improve the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Organisms generally produce more offspring than can survive to maturity. In addition, offspring that have an advantage of this kind, can be expected to go on to produce more descendants themselves, than less advantaged members of the species.

The theory supposes that given enough time, and sufficient mutations of the right sort, enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behaviour, can eventually be produced in tiny cumulative steps, without the need for the existence of some pre-existing intelligence.

This is natural selection in a nutshell

Important note:

Before the selection process can begin, there has to be something to “select.” And that something is genes. If evolution can be thought of as manufacturing process whose product is increasingly complex organisms, then genes are its raw materials.

Genes are regions of DNA that consist of thousands to hundreds of thousands of base molecules arranged in a precise sequence. Needless to say, producing such a highly organized structure from a random, undirected process is a tall order. In fact, the chance of getting the correct sequence of molecules by happenstance is about one in ten to the thousandth power 101000 (that is ten with 1000 zeros!), even for the smallest gene!

Macro mutation Vs Micro mutation

Mutations are of two main types:

Macro mutations (Also known as saltation): A macro mutation is a major mutation that occurs within the gene structure of a cell, having a profound effect upon changing the nature of the cell and thus the organism itself.

Micro mutations: A micro mutation, is a minor, small-scale or highly localized mutation, one involving alteration at a single gene locus (the position of a gene within a chromosome)

Darwin argued, in essence, that evolution was based in macro evolution. That there would be major mutations that bring about major changes in an organism that would lead, in time, to the mutated organism surviving and changing. Over time it would be unable to breed with its like, but would breed with another similarly mutated organism, and they would go on to become a species.

It must also be born in mind, that DNA has amazing ‘proof reading, self repairing abilities. Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well, and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks in DNA—nevertheless, the repair sometimes fails to return the DNA to its original sequence. So the theory therefore, is dependant upon waiting for mutations within a cell that would ordinarily repair itself, to fail to repair itself, and for resultant mutation to be ‘beneficial’!

Saltations (or systemic macromutations, as they are often called today) are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation. In a word (Darwin’s word), a saltation is equivalent to a miracle. Though he still maintained it ‘could’ happen.

Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels.

Darwin wrote in The origin of Species:

“Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being”

How can such things be built up by “infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?” The first step towards a new function- such as vision or ability to fly- would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval ironsmith producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

The animal that developed the first mutated wing for example would probably have an awkward time climbing or grasping long before they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical creature at a serious disadvantage. Which, by the standard set in the theory based in ’survival of the fittest’, should cause this mutant creature to die out.

The number of vertebrae has to be changed in whole units, and to accomplish this you need to do more than just ‘shove in’ an extra bone, because each vertebra has associated with it a set of nerves, blood vessels, muscles, and so on. These complicated parts would all have to appear together for the extra vertebrae to make any biological sense

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself “the excellent question, What good is 5 per cent of an eye?,” and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that – “An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually I don’t think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.”

The fallacy in that argument is that “5 per cent of an eye” is not the same thing as “5 per cent of normal vision.” For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

(It is also worth noting that is it well known among biolologists, that animals with gene related deformities have generally been found to be sterile)

Bird and bat wings appear in the fossil records already developed, and no one has ever confirmed by experiment that the gradual evolution of wings and eyes is possible.

Thus the issue remains a conundrum for evolutionist. They will continue to defend their position by saying “examples of macro mutation and gradual change in organisms, just haven’t yet been discovered in the fossil records”

Since that is the case it is safe to say it is a theory Darwin thought up and then attempted to seek evidence for. A theory that is thus far, baseless.

Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in action, so he relied heavily upon an argument by analogy.

Douglas J Futuyma stated:

“When Darwin wrote the origin of species he could offer no good cases for natural selection because no one had looked for them. He drew instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on. Breeders have been spectacularly successful at altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants, to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors, far more than related species differ from them“.

The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence, and specialised knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect them from natural dangers.

The point of Darwin’s theory was to establish that senseless, purposeless, natural processes can substitute for intelligent design.

The fact that he defended his point using examples and accomplishments of intelligent designers, only proves that his audience was highly uncritical of him!

Artificial selection is not basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but fundamentally different.

Human breeders produce variations in pigeons or chickens or sheep for purposes absent in nature. When domesticated animals return to the wild, they revert quickly to their wild state, the most highly specialised breeds quickly perish.

Additionally breeders have created no new ‘species’. For example all dogs are of a single species because they are chemically capable of interbreeding. They are dogs. Differences in size may make mating with some breeds impractical. But they remain dogs!

The late French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé concluded: “The results of artificial breeding provides powerful testimony against darwins theory, in spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection, eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice, over a whole millennia, no new species are born”

The fact is that selection gives tangible form to, and gathers together, all the varieties a genome (the genetic material of an organism consisting of DNA) is capable of producing but does not constitute and innovative evolutionary process.

In other words the reason dogs don’t become as big as elephants much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough, dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change. They stop getting bigger when their genetic limit is reached.

Darwinists disagree with this and they have points to make. They point with pride to laboratory experiments with fruit flies, which has not produced anything but fruit flies! though it may have changed some of their characteristics.

As far as animals are concerned darwinists return the inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time. The time available has to be taken into account in evaluating breeding experiments but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature is more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose, which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the fruit fly experiment for example Pierre-P. Grassé noted that the fruit fly, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Nature has had plenty of time but it just hadn’t been doing what the experimenters have been doing.

Whether selection has ever accomplished speciation, that is, the production of a new species, is not the point. A biological species is simply a group capable of interbreeding. Success in dividing fruit flies into two or more populations that cannot inter breed, does not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a fruit fly from a bacterium.

Thus if breeders where able to produce dogs that could only breed with itself and not other dogs they would have only made the tinest step towards proving darwins claims. Since only a part of his theory and definition of new species revolved around the new species being unable to breed with the pre-species.

Thus more evidence is needed.

Natural selection is a tautology (a way of saying the same thing twice)

The sum total of the concept is that the species that is strong enough to produce the most offspring…will produce the most offspring!

The famous philosopher of science karl popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) wrote:

“Darwinism is not really a scientific theory, because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing!”

A tautology does not explain anything. When I want to know how a fish can become a man I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring…leave the most offspring.

The reality of the theory of natural selection is that we are told that the fittest beings remained in a given environment. Characteristics that give offspring an advantage differ from time and place and circumstance. That which may be an advantage in one place may not be so in another. The development of wings on a beetle may be an advantage in one place but if they are close to the sea, for example it could cause them to be light and easy to be blown away to sea, in which case it is a disadvantage. Therefore the characteristic that is considered advantageous to a creature, is that which helps him to survive. When he survives, he leaves the most offspring as a result of his survival. Therefore natural selection in actuality only states the obvious, that the organism that leaves the most offspring…will leave the most offspring!

Natural selection as a deductive argument

Natural selection may be presented in the form of a deductive argument.

For example:

All organisms must reproduce

All organisms exhibit hereditary variations

Hereditary variations differ in their effects on reproduction

Therefore variations with favourable effects on reproduction will succeed, those with unfavourable effects will fail, and organisms will change

From this stand point we see the only thing it establishes, is that some natural selection will occur and not that it is an explanation for evolution. Actually it does not even establish that organisms will change. In any population some animals will leave more offspring than others even if the population is headed for extinction.

Natural selection as a scientific hypothesis

Scientists will insist that Darwinist natural selection is a hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation), that has been so thoroughly and rigorously tested and confirmed by evidence that is should be accepted by reasonable persons as a presumptively adequate explanation for the evolution of complex life forms.

Therefore natural selection in combination with mutation is an innovative revolutionary process with is capable of producing new kinds of organs and organisms.

So the critical question is: What evidence confirms that the hypothesis is true?

Where are the ‘in-between’ species?

The development of species required very ‘gradual’ steps over many, many years. So surely we must have some evidence of at least some of these many gradual developmental changes…but not one!?

In response we will inevitably hear natural selection (survival of the fittest) necessitated, that they died out!

The general hypothesis is that man (and all other creatures for that matter) began as a single cell amoeba and developed into more complex cells which then went on to become a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptilian lizard, then a tree dwelling mammal, then apes, then several stages of ape-man type creatures and then mankind. Of course this is a very general version of the proposed theory.

This presents a number of questions:

If man evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?

If lizards evolved into birds, why are lizards and birds both still here?

Evolutionists will answer this is because we have had evolution ‘cycles’ due to more than one ice age or because all species have common ancestries.

That still does not explain what we only have the presence of huge jumps from one species to another and no sign of the ‘in-between’ species. Bear in mind evolution is proposed to have taken millions of years (another issue that requires discussion). In utter desperation the evolutionist resorts to saying that the ‘missing link’ just has not yet been discovered in the fossil records. Some claim they have already found proof of the missing link, but upon investigation they have all found to be hoaxes. We will look at that under the issue of the fossil records. The reality is though that the missing link is not just one, but thousands of missing links indicative of our gradual development. That is if were looking at the missing link between monkey and man. What of the thousands of missing links between amoeba and fish? Similarly fish to amphibian, then amphibian to reptile.

All species between fish and reptiles died out? Why then did the original species for instance fish survive?

If there were many gradual steps between monkey and man, then why do we have hundreds of species of monkey, the original type, still living but none of the in-between?

The claim is that modern man has been around for 1 million years (yet another ‘claim’)which would necessitate that it would have taken some 100 million years of more for man to develop from Monkey to man. If we said (for the sake of argument) that it took only 10 million years for modern man to develop. That would mean at the rate of significant change there would be perhaps some 200 stages (probably far far more) from ape to man. The original monkey survived, in fact various breeds of monkey and ape, but not one of the 200 variations in between?…not one!?

The question is where are all these varying developmental stages we should see on the planet, since both ends of the spectrum still exist, but not one of the many stages in between, not even a legitimate fossil!

Where are the 10% man 90% ape? Or the 20% man 80% ape etc. Likewise among the other species. Why do so many pre-species, with their varying types, exist alongside their advanced species, and none of the species in-between. Could it possibly be because we actually don’t have perpetual evolution taking place?

Another issue is, why did the evolutionary process of ape to man, stop at man? And if the argument is, it hasn’t stopped with man (i.e. man is still mutating) then why is he the only one evolving.

The point is, evolution is not the ‘easy to accept, highly logical explanation for the origin of all things it is proposed to be, except when we leave these questions out and smooth the theory over.

The language of the evolutionist

Another important issue to note is the language of the evolutionist. It is commonplace to hear (or read) an evolutionist describing how evolution ‘selected’ a species, or caused a certain species to adapt. Or perhaps that evolution ‘fixed’ a particular problem or ‘left’ something since it didn’t need fixing etc. This language points to something that has the powers of reason and design, though they will not refer to it in these terms. It is as though they perceive evolution as some sort of ‘impersonal intelligent force’ that exists, making decisions on how the species needs to evolve.

This is clearly acknowledgement of the need for intelligent design while trying to flee from it as it will be tantamount to acknowledging a ‘creator’ but of course that cannot be done since we have an inability to establish a creator through scientific process.

Not only do we have the magnificent creatures that exist on earth but the ideal food chain to support them. An ecology that is perfect to support life with the ideal gasses, such as oxygen and CO2 etc

Perfection in the seasons and temperatures and the universe. There is beauty and fragrance in the flowers, birds, butterflies etc that for practical purposes should not be here.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that to postulate that this has come about by chance is a tad far-fetched?

In light of all of this, even atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle have admitted,

“The idea that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is as ridiculous and improbable as proposing that a tornado blowing through a junkyard would cause the assembly of a 747!”

Hoyle is among many who now concede that the universe is neither old enough nor large enough to produce even the most elemental gene. And without genes, evolution is like a factory assembly line without anything on the conveyor belt.

Conclusion

We are able to say in summary:

That the concept of natural selection is nothing but a statement of the obvious, that is in any given circumstance, the strongest organism that has best ability to leave more offspring…will leave more offspring! and thus survive.

That Darwins intent was that random unguided mutations, were all that were needed to bring about new species of animal.

That through this process, man developed from a single cell organism to where he is today

That natural selection conjectures about survival of the fittest but does not discuss the ‘arrival’ of the fittest

That decent with modification is until now unproven, thus ironically, believers in natural selection (when we really understands the far-fetched nature of what they assert) require far more ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in it than to have faith in an Intelligent Creator.

If this is the strongest of the evidence presented by the evolutionist and we can see its fragility, the evolutionist retorts ‘but there is clear evidence in fossil records!’ therefore will look at that next.

It is an established trait from the traits of those who rejected the call of the prophets and the messengers of the past that they would use various conjecture based claims to stand against the prophet and his followers.

The affair was no different at the time of prophet Muhammad, the pagan tribe of Quraish who stood against him would forge lies upon him while at the same time they themselves were proponents of belief systems based upon conjecture and falsehood.

Allah the most high mentions in the Qur’ān:

أَفَرَأَيْتُمُ اللَّاتَ وَالْعُزَّىٰ

Have you then considered Al-Lat, and Al-‘Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs).

وَمَنَاةَ الثَّالِثَةَ الْأُخْرَىٰ

And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third? {Suratun Najm: 19-20}

They are not but [mere] names you have named them – you and your forefathers – for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. {Suratun Najm: 23}

Thus rejection of the prophets has historically been based in conjecture. In our era, the affair remains the same. But rather than rejection of the oneness of the creator, and his sole right to be worshipped alone, due to blind bigotry towards an idol, we have in our era blind faith of another kind. A concept masked in the guise of ‘established fact’ and ‘well known undisputed truth’ and ‘compelling evidence’, while the reality is, it is as much a ‘belief’ as any other man-made religion is and that is the belief in the theory of Darwinism.

Who was Charles Darwin?

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809– 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist. He was born in Shrewsbury, England. He is famous for his theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin’s views about common descent (the belief that all living beings, share a single common ancestor), as expressed in his book ‘On the Origin of Species’, were that he argued that there was only one ancestor for all life forms

His book ‘On the Origin of Species’ (1859) did two things. First, it provided what Darwinist consider evidence that evolution has taken place (even though latter day Darwinists added to the body of ‘evidence’ presented by darwin, without furthering his plight one iota). Second, it proposed a theory to explain how evolution works. That theory is known as Natural Selection. Evolution by natural selection is one of the key concepts within Darwinist belief. They hold that it explains the presence and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore belief in a ‘Creator’ is a fallacy, since science explains why and how we exist.

Natural Selection (Or ‘Survival of the fittest’)

Darwin believed that living beings have been modified primarily by ‘natural selection’ acting on ‘random variations’ or in other words ‘Survival of the fittest’

He wrote:

“I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification”

He argued that lifeforms, all returned back to one common ancestor. This one common ancestor changed into different species and types through random mutations, that occurred within that one species. Those mutations brought about stronger forms of the same being, that were better able to survive their environment, causing the previous ‘weaker’ life forms, to remain unchanged or ultimately die out. They then went on to breed with other randomly ‘mutated’ beings like themselves, over generations. Eventually, they became a separate species that was unable to mate with it predecessor. Thus we had the creation of a new ‘species’ of animal.This, he believed, was the process that brought fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals into existence, not to mention the varying types of animal within each animal ‘group’.

Therefore he argues that, all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primitive origin, into which life was first breathed

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”

Coyne further explains that evolution “simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time. That is, over many generations, a species can evolve into something quite different, and those differences are based on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. The species of animals and plants living today weren’t around in the past, but are descended from those that lived earlier.”

(Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 3-4)

According to Coyne, however, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation (pronounced ‘spee-see-ay-tion),” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”

(Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 5-6)

Important definitions

The following are some essential definitions we should be acquainted with early on in our discussion.

Evolution

Evolution has many meanings. In its most general sense, it means change over time. The present is different from the past. No sane person rejects evolution in this sense.

Not all change is considered Darwinian evolution, therefore the type of evolution we are referring to is ‘cumulative (i.e. increasing, growing) change over time’. The fact that things change over time is also not controversial. Biologists refer to evolution specifically as ‘a change in ‘gene frequencies’ (‘mutations’ for short) over generations’. Similarly, evolution in this sense is still uncontroversial. One person’s genes differ from the genes of his parents, and theirs, differ from the genes of their parents, and so on.

Descent with Modification

Darwin’s term for evolution was: ‘Descent with modification (i.e. Descent with change)’ this definition of his, upon first hearing it doesn’t sound particularly problematic either, as it could well include the differing in genes between parent and child we mentioned earlier. Animal breeders have used decent with modification for years, but within a specific species (make a note of this as it is important to our discussion)

The same occurs in the wild, but again only within a specific existing species.

Thus far, these understandings of evolution are not problematic.

Charles Darwin claimed far more than any of these things though. In ‘The Origin Of Species’ he set out to explain the origin of all species of living creatures, that is, all the diversity of life on earth. Thus our discussion is, in truth, around Darwinism and not merely evolution in the general aforementioned sense.

Darwinism

Summary of the theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution, therefore, revolves around the concept that, organisms in nature, typically produce more offspring than can survive and reproduce, given the constraints of food, space, and other resources in the environment. But they may have random mutations that give the life form, an advantage over its weaker counterpart. These differences that occur, due to random genetic mutations within DNA, may be passed on to their offspring. If competing offspring, have traits that give them an advantage in a given environment, they will survive and pass those traits on. As these differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms diverge and differ, from their ancestors. This process has led the earliest organisms on earth to diversify into all animals and microorganisms that exist today.

Thus the theory applies to living beings.

Darwinism, therefore, consists of the following claims:

All living things are modified descendants of one common ancestor

The principle mechanism of modification has been natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting on undirected random variations that originate in DNA (gene) mutations, and,

Unguided random processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things, so whatever may appear to be ‘design’ is just an illusion.

This is Darwinism.

Darwin wrote in ‘The Origins Of Species’:

“I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings that lived in the distant past”

A note on the term ‘Intelligent Design’

Intelligent design refers to the use of empirical evidence (i.e. verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic) to indicate that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause, it is not always used, however, to refer to belief in god. There exists a body of atheist scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, but do not believe in God (for example the well know atheist philosopher Antony Flew – 1 February 1923 – 8 April 2010. After being a well-known atheist for many years, he converted to ‘deism’ in 2004. Though when arguing that he believes in Intelligent design, he advocated an Aristotelian philosophical god and not the god of Christians and Muslims). The ID movement, as it is sometimes called, is a relatively new one, gaining popularity in the 1980’s. Therefore, while some may use the term in a general way intending by that, belief in god, it is important to know that this is not always intended by all who use it. In short, all belief in God is belief in Intelligent Design, but not all belief in Intelligent Design is belief in God. The issue here is, one must be sure to ascertain the intent of the one who uses this term.

In rejection of intelligent design, Darwin strikes an example of a house built from rock, found at the base of a mountain. He argued that while the rocks are important to the architect, their relationship with the house he has built, is similar to the relation of the variations of each organic being, and the varying forms of their descendants. So even though the rocks were used to build something beautiful, the rocks themselves are just random accidental structures.

In this parable of his, the architect (as far as Darwin was concerned) is natural selection. While this parable may sound convincing, the correct parable, in relation to his theory, would be like the same architect closing his eyes, then throwing those rocks in any direction or even (for arguments sake) in one direction, if he throws enough rocks eventually they accidentally fall in just the right sequence so as to produce, a beautiful, two storey home, with winding staircase, living room, kitchen, a number of bedrooms, fireplace, a beautiful chimney and high wall surrounding it. What then is the likelihood of that occurring? A parable that, I’m sure you’ll agree requires rethinking!

Secondly, if a stranger were to stumble across the house, what is he most likely to conclude, that it was the work of an intelligent architect, building with open eyes or the work of a random individual throwing rocks randomly with both eyes shut tight? And for what reason would that stranger reject the first suggestion, and fight and argue vehemently for the second?

But the reality of what he is suggesting with his theory doesn’t stop there, supposing he goes on to postulate that the same thing occurred with the house next door, then the houses on the whole street, and then all of the real estate within the city!? This, in essence, is what he suggests, and more.

And thirdly, would he dare reject the fact that this was the work of an architect? and go further to deny his existence claiming there is no evidence proving he exists because he had never personally seen him?

Fourthly, the parable is, in essence, a refutation against his theory since the house he suggests is based on the work of an ‘Intelligent designer’ (in this case the architect) something he rejects!

Darwin and Darwinists have struggled to find and compile evidences for the theory. There is not a single established evidence for the ‘belief’ yet they are bold enough to refer to the theory as ‘fact’ and not theory. Upon analysis, we see they are unable able to substantiate their claim with a single firmly established undisputed argument. Thus Darwinism is considered by many in the scientific world, much less among believers in God, to be nothing more than a set of ‘beliefs’ or simply put, another man-made ‘religion’ with ‘Natural Selection’ and ‘Decent with modification’ as it as its deity.

The ‘evidences’ for the theory?

Any theory that purports to be ‘scientific’ must somehow, at some point, be substantiated through observation and/or experiment.

Theories that survive repeated testing may be tentatively regarded as true statements.

But if there is a consistent conflict between theory and evidence, the former must submit to the latter.

If this occurs, it is no longer science, but a myth.

Testing must also be made public, so as to be examined by experts, which is known in the science world as ‘Peer Review’

Darwinists have a number of ‘so-called’ evidence they believe substantiates the theory.

These evidences are regularly used in science texts book and quoted by lecturers as undisputed fact.

As a young, biomedical Science University student in the early 90’s, I remember being taught some of this evidence very early on in the degree. They are taught as fundamental building blocks essential to every science student, particularly the science of biology. And I am sure the same applies to other universities teaching similar degrees.

These oft-quoted evidences then, are:

The Theory of Natural Selection

The Miller/Urey experiment: A laboratory simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere in which it is claimed electric sparks produced the building blocks of living cells (The Operin/Holdane hypothesis supported by the resultant Miller/Urey experiment)

The fossil records: An analysis of a growing body of fossil and molecular evidence reconstructing the evolutionary ‘Tree of Life’

Pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds, and human beings are all descended from a fish like creature

Similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor

Archaeopteryx (pronounced Ar-ke-op-ter-ix, sometimes referred to as Urvogel (meaning original bird). A fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link (it is claimed) between ancient reptiles and modern birds

Darwin’s Finches: 13 species of finch Darwin found on the Galapagos islands that diverge from one, it is said this is what inspired Darwin to formulate his ‘theory of evolution’

Fruit flies with an extra pair of wings showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution. And finally ;

Drawings of ape like animals evolving into humans, showing that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes

In the following parts of this series we will look at these ‘evidences’ one by one inshallah.

(They took to flight because of their) arrogance in the land and their plotting of evil. But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it. Then, can they expect anything (else), but the Sunnah (way of dealing) of the peoples of old? So no change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing), and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing). {Suratul Fātir: 43}

The prophethood of the final messenger Muhammad was no different, there have been many attempts to disprove the Messengership Of Muhammad in the past, just as they did during his time.

This series looks at some of the present day claims against the call of Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islām he came with and responds to some of these claims.

Hopefully this series will be of benefit to the believers generally and those who are active in the arena of da’wah specifically.

Was Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad.

Doubt 1: There is no such thing as ‘Allah’, our knowledge of evolution disproves his existance.

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions under the biography of Yusuf Ibn Khaalid As Samti:

“I refused to accept the statement of Yahya Ibn Ma’een concerning him, wherein he referred to him as a ‘Zindeeq’ (Heretic) until a book that he wrote supporting ‘Tajahum’ (The aqeedah of the Jahmiyah) chapter after chapter, was brought to me. He rejected within it belief in the scales on the day of Judgement. It was then that I knew that Yahya Ibn Ma’een did not speak except upon foresight and understanding!” Continue reading →

Immamut Tirmidhi said It was Narrated to us from Abd Ibn Humaid who said I was informed by shabaabah upon the authority of Israa’eel upon the authority of Thuwair who said I heard Ibn Umar say: The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam Said:

“Indeed the least of the people in Janah in station is one who will look at his (portion of) paradise and his wives and his blessing and his servants and his beds (and thrones) and they will cover the distance of one thousand years journey and the most noble of them in station is the one who looks at his (Allah) face every morning and evening then the Messenger of Allah recited the statement of Allah “Faces on that day will be bright and illuminated looking at their lord” Continue reading →

It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading →

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:

Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

“This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

“And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

“He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice”

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’